19,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
Disasters kill, maim, and generate increasingly large economic losses. But they do not wreak their damage equally across populations, and every disaster has social dimensions at its very core. This important book sheds light on the social conditions and on the global, national, and local processes that produce disasters. Topics covered include the social roots of disaster vulnerability, exposure to natural hazards such as hurricanes and tsunamis as a form of environmental injustice, and emerging threats. Written by a leading expert in the field, this book provides the necessary frameworks for understanding hazards and disasters, exploring the contributions of very different social science fields to disaster research and showing how these ideas have evolved over time. Bringing the social aspects of recent devastating disasters to the forefront, Tierney discusses the challenges of conducting research in the aftermath of disasters and critiques the concept of disaster resilience, which has come to be seen as a key to disaster risk reduction. Peppered with case studies, research examples, and insights from very different disciplines, this rich introduction is an invaluable resource to students and scholars interested in the social nature of disasters and their relation to broader social forces.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 690
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019
Ähnliche
CONTENTS
Cover
Front Matter
1 The Social Significance of Disasters
Introduction
Key Concepts and Definitions in the Study of Disasters
Chapter Themes
Notes
2 Disaster Research in Historical Context: Early Insights and Recent Trends
Introduction
Disaster Research: Origins and Early Years
The Natural Hazards Tradition
Trends in the Study of Hazards and Disasters
Watershed Events: 9–11, Katrina, the Indian Ocean Tsunami, and the 2011 Japan Triple Disaster
Notes
3 Sociological Research on Disasters: Key Contributions from Other Disciplines
Introduction
Contributions from Selected Disciplines
Concluding Observations
Notes
4 Theoretical Approaches and Perspectives in the Study of Hazards and Disasters
Introduction
General Explanatory Frameworks
Middle-Range Theory: Panic, Emergence, and Self-Protective Actions
Notes
5 Confronting Disaster Research Challenges
Introduction
Disaster Research Methods: How Distinctive Are They?
Concluding Observations
6 Disaster Vulnerability
Introduction
The Concept of Vulnerability
Drivers of Vulnerability
Key Dimensions of Social Vulnerability: Class, Race, and Gender
The Importance of an Intersectional Approach to Vulnerability
Other Aspects of Vulnerability: Children, Older Adults, and Others
Measuring Disaster Vulnerability
Concluding Comments
Notes
7 Disaster Resilience: Concepts, Measures, and Critiques
Introduction
What Is Disaster Resilience?
Measuring Disaster Resilience
Community-Level Measurement Frameworks
Organizational-Level Measurement of Resilience
Measuring Household Resilience
Programs for Enhancing Resilience
Resilient Disaster Responses
Resilient Disaster Recovery
Concluding Comments
Notes
8 What the Future Holds: Greater Risks and Impacts or Greater Coping Capacity?
Introduction: A Changing Landscape of Risk
New Sources of Vulnerability
The Evil We Know: Hazards with Catastrophic Potential
Climate Change-Related Threats
Can Resilience-Centered Approaches Reduce Future Disaster Impacts?
A Resilient Future?
Notes
Bibliography
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 1
1.1
How emergencies, disasters, and catastrophes differ
Chapter 2
2.1
Examples of hazard-, disaster-, and risk-related centers and programs
Chapter 7
7.1
Scorecard activities and selected indicators
7.2
Resilience measures developed by Resilient Organisations
Chapter 8
8.1
Cities with the highest projected economic losses from coastal flooding-related …
List of Illustrations
Chapter 7
7.1
Less degradation of system performance, more resilience
7.2
Greater degradation of system performance, less resilience
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
iii
iv
xiii
xiv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
Disasters: A Sociological Approach
KATHLEEN TIERNEY
polity
Copyright © Kathleen Tierney 2019
The right of Kathleen Tierney to be identified as Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published in 2019 by Polity Press
Polity Press65 Bridge StreetCambridge CB2 1UR, UK
Polity Press101 Station LandingSuite 100Medford, MA 02155, USA
All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN-13: 978-1-5095-3569-9
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Tierney, Kathleen J., author.Title: Disasters : a sociological approach / Kathleen Tierney.Description: Medford, MA : Polity Press, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index.Identifiers: LCCN 2018029797 (print) | LCCN 2018031922 (ebook) | ISBN 9781509535699 (Epub) | ISBN 9780745671017 (hardback) | ISBN 9780745671024 (pbk.)Subjects: LCSH: Disasters--Social aspects. | Disasters--Research.Classification: LCC HV553 (ebook) | LCC HV553 .T54 2018 (print) | DDC 363.34/1--dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018029797
The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.
Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.
Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.
For further information on Polity, visit our website: politybooks.com
Acknowledgments
I owe thanks to many people for their help with this book. My partner of over thirty years, Peter Park, died in April 2014, just as I was finishing my last book. He remains an inspiration to me, and he is never far from my thoughts. Thank you, Peter, for all those wonderful years, for your integrity, and for your important intellectual contributions to my work. I remain in awe.
In the years that followed, I benefitted enormously from the support—both personal and professional—provided by colleagues and dear friends, especially Liesel Ritchie, Nnenia Campbell, Chip Clarke, Brandi Gilbert, Duane Gill, Jim Kendra, Wee-Kiat Lim, Jamie Vickery, and Tricia Wachtendorf. Thanks are also due to the staff of the University of Colorado Natural Hazards Center, where I served as director from August 2003 to January 2017, and to Lori Peek, my brilliant successor. Special thanks to staff member Jeff Gunderson for the figures in Chapter 7. Many other colleagues and friends, too numerous to acknowledge here, made this journey possible. All of you helped me keep it together throughout this process, and for that I am grateful.
There are no friends like old friends, and my deepest thanks for your unfailing support go to Maggie Andersen, Sheila Balkan, Valerie Hans, Elizabeth Higgenbotham, and Ruth Horowitz. Thanks also to the Late Great Kate—Kathleen Connors, my oldest friend, who was taken from us in January 2018. Trips to Las Vegas and Sayulita will never be the same without you, Katie.
I am fortunate to live in a close-knit neighborhood—a place where social capital is strong—and I am grateful to all my neighbors, who since the early 2000s have hosted monthly potluck dinners, holiday parties, and (last but not least) the viciously competitive summer croquet tournament. We went through the 2013 flood together, and that experience made our bonds even stronger.
To Jonathan Skerrett, my editor at Polity, and to editorial assistant Karina Jákupsdóttir, thank you for your patience and for your wise counsel. You are both models of kindness, understanding, and probity. I am especially grateful to Manuela Tecusan, who went over the manuscript word by word and line by line and made many suggestions that improved the clarity and quality of the text. I also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers of earlier versions of the manuscript for your sage guidance.
Very special and heartfelt thanks are due to Jamie Sedlacko, my assistant on this book project. Jamie, I literally could not have completed the project without your help. Sorry for those all-nighters!
Finally, I want to thank my extended family: On my side, dearest Justin, Amy, Violet, and Rita; Barbara and Jerry; Mary, Lori, Lynn, Matt, Ava, Rowan, Michael, and Emily; and Erin, Jeremy, and Katherine. On Peter’s side, Susy, Ben, Bea, and Roland; Sam; Phoebe, Tom, Lulu, Tommy, and Gus; and my dearest nieces, nephew, and grand-nieces and grand-nephews. How very, very fortunate I am to have all of you in my life.
1The Social Significance of Disasters
Introduction
Disasters are a frequent occurrence across the globe and, despite organized efforts to reduce disaster losses, those losses continue to grow. Between 1996 and 2005, an estimated 1.5 million people were killed in disasters worldwide, and many more were affected by injuries, disaster-related illness, homelessness, and economic loss. Deaths and injuries are more common in low- and middle-income countries by several orders of magnitude, while economic losses are significantly higher in wealthier nations (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) 2016). According to studies carried out by Munich Reinsurance, worldwide disaster losses for 2017 totaled $330 billion, only half of that amount being covered by insurance. A significant share of those losses is attributable to three major hurricanes that struck the United States in 2017—Harvey, Irma, and Maria—making 2017 the second-highest year for overall losses, after 2011, when losses amounted to approximately $354 billion in current dollars.
In addition to causing deaths, injuries, and economic losses, disasters have other profound social impacts that we will explore in this volume. According to a recent report by the World Bank Group (2017), disasters are a key factor in driving people into poverty and keeping them there. Disasters can lead to short- and long(er)-term mental health problems as well as to threats to physical health. Experiencing a disaster can be a major stressor for households and business owners. The extensive damage and disruption that disasters cause can result in the breakup of neighborhoods and in the loss of significant sources of social support for disaster survivors, some of whom may never be able to return to their homes, while others will never recover from these experiences. Many who survive disaster may find themselves living in temporary accommodations for months or even years, their daily routines disrupted and their plans for recovery stalled. After disasters, children’s development may suffer as a result of interruptions in schooling, residential dislocation, and parental stress.
Key societal institutions also experience difficulties in the aftermath of disasters, as schools, churches, charitable organizations, and agencies that provide health and welfare services see their burdens increase. Communities face challenges associated with the disruption and restoration of key lifelines such as water, electrical power, transportation, and other critical infrastructure systems. Local jurisdictions may experience population decline and tax losses. A disaster is a once-in-a-lifetime experience for most communities, and they often struggle to understand what they need to do to respond and recover.
Large economies, such as those of the United States and other developed countries, experience temporary economic setbacks in the aftermath of disasters, but there is little evidence to date that disasters cause significant economic downturns in more developed nations. However, this is not the case for smaller, less developed countries; in those cases, disasters can have significant economic impacts, particularly when they affect key sectors of those economies. For a nation seeking to improve its level of economic development, a disaster can be a major setback. In both large and small countries, the need to respond to and recover from disasters drains financial resources that could otherwise be employed more productively. In the United States, as billion- and multibillion-dollar disasters continue to occur with alarming frequency, taxpayers, insurance companies, and disaster survivors themselves are forced to foot the bill. For households and businesses, disasters can result in increased debt and an inability to take advantage of opportunities for financial advancement. In many instances, particularly of catastrophic and near-catastrophic disasters, it can take years or even decades for social and economic recovery to take place, as communities, families, and businesses struggle to cope over the long term.
As we will see throughout this volume, disaster impacts and losses are not random, nor are the burdens of disasters borne equally by all members of affected populations. Rather, the impacts of disasters often fall most heavily on those who are most vulnerable: the poor, racial and ethnic minorities, and other marginalized groups. Many current inquiries in the sociological study of disasters center on how various axes of inequality such as class, race, gender, and other aspects of social stratification contribute to shaping the patterns of disaster victimization and recovery.
Media attention typically focuses on the immediate impacts of disasters and fades away in days or weeks. As a result, the public is generally unaware of the cascading effects of disasters and of the struggles that survivors endure over time. In Hurricane Harvey in 2017, floodwaters surged over many facilities that contained toxins, such as landfills and agricultural and petrochemical plants. Those waters, too, contained biological hazards, for example fecal matter, E. coli bacteria, shigella, and even Vibrio vulnificus, a deadly bacterium. When Hurricane Maria struck the US territory of Puerto Rico that same year, the island’s electric power infrastructure was essentially destroyed. Among other impacts, the loss of power threatened the lives of those who were dependent on kidney dialysis treatments and on medical devices that required a supply of electricity. Wildfires denude landscapes and set the stage for flooding and landslides later, when it rains, as happened for example in 2017, when major fires in central California were followed by deadly debris flows. After the devastating 2010 earthquake in Haiti, Nepalese troops providing relief under the auspices of the United Nations brought cholera to the island. As of 2016, an estimated 770,000 people, or about 8 percent of the population, have been infected with cholera and over 9,000 people have died—and those numbers are thought to be underestimates (Knox 2016). In 2011 in Japan, when the Great Tohoku earthquake triggered a deadly tsunami that caused a triple meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, the media covered that sensational story, but now there is little coverage of the ongoing effects of the large-scale population displacement and long-term nuclear contamination that this massive disaster caused.
Also neglected are the ways in which hazards and disasters can erode the sense of community and the sense of place, and also lead to conflict among those who are affected. Disasters can result in the loss of important cultural assets, as happens for example when historic structures are destroyed and traditional livelihoods are disrupted. Decades ago sociologist Kai Erikson (1976) showed how a flash flood that occurred in 1972 in Buffalo Creek, West Virginia as a result of negligence on the part of a coal company that failed to maintain a dam effectively destroyed community cohesion and triggered widespread mental health problems in the affected communities. In a subsequent book entitled A New Species of Trouble, Erikson (1995) documented how technological disasters and toxic threats can cause collective trauma for Native Americans and other disadvantaged groups. As the title suggests, technological advances achieved in contemporary societies have a dark side, which manifests itself in the form of heretofore unacknowledged hazards. Other research illustrates how such threats and the lawsuits they often engender can lead to the formation of contentious factions and to decline in social connectedness and trust.
Disasters can also provoke challenges to the legitimacy and competence of governments and institutions. In one historic example, the dictatorial government of Nicaragua appropriated and mishandled international aid after the 1972 Managua earthquake and subsequently fell from power seven years later, largely as a result of public indignation. The 2003 epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), which originated in China, created a legitimacy crisis for the ruling Communist Party, which had attempted to cover up the outbreak even as it spread worldwide. In 2005 the response to the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe was so inexcusably inept that it permanently tarnished the record of the Bush administration. In the aftermath of the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake in Italy, six scientists and one public official were found guilty of manslaughter for not adequately informing the public, in the days leading up to the disaster, about the impending danger—an episode that bears evidence of the eroding confidence in science and government in the face of disaster. Governments that depend on international aid in order to respond to and recover from disasters may find their countries overrun and their authority bypassed by outside entities that pursue their donors’ interests rather than the needs of disaster victims. The provision of large amounts of disaster aid also tends to breed and feed corruption, particularly in already corrupt societies, and this leads to public distrust and disillusionment.
The impacts of disasters, and in many cases their likelihood, are amplified by ongoing global trends. Rapid and uncontrolled urbanization and intensified development in hazardous areas put ever larger populations at risk. The proliferation of global supply chains means that disasters that affect suppliers in one country have ramifications for businesses in distant nations. Climate change leads to ocean warming and sea-level rise, which in turn result in more extreme atmospheric events and greater impacts from those events in coastal areas. As climate change progresses, societies around the world will be forced to grapple with more frequent heat waves, the spread of infectious disease agents, land loss in coastal areas, and a host of other climate change-induced effects.
Given the societal significance of disasters, it is not difficult to see why sociologists and other social scientists find these events and the efforts to reduce their impacts endlessly fascinating. As we have already seen, disasters have economic, political and policy, health and mental health dimensions. They frequently bring to the fore issues of inequality and social justice, shining a light on the problems experienced by marginalized and vulnerable populations. At the same time, social behavior in disasters also reveals the human capacity for altruism and creativity. We will explore together these and other themes in the chapters that follow.
Key Concepts and Definitions in the Study of Disasters
To ensure that we are working from a common set of definitions in the discussion that follow, in this section I introduce concepts that are commonly used in the sociological study of disasters and that will be employed in later chapters. Obviously one key concept is the idea of disaster itself. An important takeaway point is that disasters are by their nature social events, not merely physical ones. If a major volcanic eruption were to occur in an area where human settlements did not exist or remained unaffected, that eruption would be a significant geophysical event, but not a disaster. In keeping with sociological conceptualizations, disasters involve the juxtaposition of physical forces—geological, atmospheric, technological, and other forces—and vulnerable human communities. The severity of a disaster is measured not by the magnitude of the physical forces involved, but rather by the magnitude of its societal impacts.
As subsequent discussions will show, disasters were previously seen as discrete events, concentrated in time and space, that disrupt the social order and interfere with the ability of a community or society to continue to operate, for example by interfering with governmental functions, economic activities, utility services, education, transportation, telecommunications, and housing. While acknowledging such impacts, more recent social science formulations see disasters as arising not so much from the physical forces that trigger them at specific times as from longer-term global and societal processes, which in turn result in an increase of the potential for loss. Much of the discussion that follows will focus on those processes, making the point that the potential for disasters and disaster victimization builds up over long time periods.
Table 1.1 How emergencies, disasters, and catastrophes differ.
SOURCE: Compiled from data in Quarantelli 1996 and Tierney 2008.
Emergencies
Disasters
Catastrophes
Impacts localized
Impacts widespread, severe
Devastating physical and societal impacts
Response mainly local
Response is multi-jurisdictional, intergovernmental, but typically bottom-up
Response is initiated by central government because localities and regions are devastated
Standard operating procedures sufficient to handle event
Response requires activation of disaster plans; significant challenges emerge
Response challenges far exceed those envisioned in disaster plans
Vast majority of response resources are unaffected
Extensive damage to and disruption of key emergency services
Response system paralyzed at local and regional levels
Public generally not involved in response
Public extensively involved in response
Public only source of initial response
No significant recovery challenges
Major recovery challenges
Massive recovery challenges and very slow recovery process
While media accounts and commonsense views of disaster tend to gloss over differences in event severity in a search for commonalities among events, sociological formulations are attentive to such differences because of their social implications. Sociologists typically classify events into emergencies, disasters, and catastrophes (see Quarantelli 1996). As shown in Table 1.1, these different types of occurrences are associated, among other things, with differences in spatial scope, the severity of their impacts, which entities respond and how, the degree of public participation in providing assistance, and recovery challenges. Emergencies include events such as multi-vehicle traffic accidents, large structure fires, and minor industrial accidents—incidents that may cause deaths and injuries but that are localized, do not create large-scale disruption, and are typically handled by public safety agencies such as fire and police departments. Emergencies are more or less everyday occurrences in large urban areas. Disasters are much less common and much more serious; they have severe consequences that include deaths, injuries, and large-scale social disruption. In disasters, members of the public join responding organizations in dealing with these and other effects. Unlike emergencies, disasters can damage and degrade the very resources that are meant to respond to them. Catastrophes are larger still; they involve massive repercussions, which greatly exceed the capacity of stricken communities to respond—including long-lasting impacts that require protracted recovery efforts. Examples of catastrophes include the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and the triple catastrophe that struck Japan in 2011. In its history, the United States has experienced only four true catastrophes: the 1900 Galveston Hurricane, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the Great Mississippi flood of 1927, and Katrina. As indicated in the table, emergencies, disasters, and catastrophes are qualitatively different. A disaster is not just a big emergency, and a catastrophe is not just a big disaster; rather the three occurrences are accompanied by differing effects, response patterns, and challenges.
The term extreme event is sometimes used interchangeably with disaster. Here the reference is to events that are out of the ordinary or outside the norm—that is, rare or unlikely. The term is more appropriately applied to physical phenomena such as rainfall or wind speed than to disaster events. This is because disasters can result from events that are technically not extreme in the physical sense, but that nonetheless overwhelm a community’s or society’s capacity to cope. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction recently developed a consensus set of terms and definitions that are meant to be applied to disaster-related phenomena. Extreme event was not among them. I mention it here because it is a term that is commonly in use in some scientific circles.
The term hazard refers to an ongoing condition that has the potential for causing a disaster. Many regions around the world are exposed to earthquake hazards; many coastal areas are exposed to hurricanes and coastal flooding; flood hazards exist along rivers and streams; areas adjacent to nuclear and chemical facilities are exposed to those technological hazards; and so on. The terms hazard and disaster are not interchangeable. The former refers to the potential for a disruptive event to occur, while the latter refers to what happens when that potential is actualized. Various scientific disciplines—geology, seismology, atmospheric science, and others—conduct research to better understand and characterize hazards, and communities and societies worldwide seek to use that knowledge to improve their understanding of the hazards to which they are exposed and the ways they can respond to such threats.
The concept of vulnerability refers to the potential for experiencing adverse impacts from disasters and having poorer outcomes after the occurrence of disasters. The concept is applied to both physical systems and individuals and social groups. For physical systems such as buildings, transportation networks, dams, and utility services, vulnerability consists of the potential for destruction, damage, or loss of function. For individuals and groups, it represents the potential for dying, being injured, losing property, being displaced, and experiencing other negative disaster impacts, as well as for having difficulty recovering after disasters. Like the term hazard, vulnerability relates to the potential for the occurrence of adverse experiences and outcomes—a potential that may or may not be realized in any particular disaster. Like hazards, vulnerabilities can be assessed in non-disaster contexts; the field of vulnerability science is devoted to improving such measurements.
Disaster resilience is a concept that has risen to prominence over the past twenty years and that will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7. Based as it is on ideas from fields as diverse as engineering, psychology, and ecology, the concept refers to the ability of social units at different scales (e.g., societies, communities, households, and organizations) to absorb disaster shocks, to cope with disaster impacts, and successfully to adapt and in some cases even improve their functioning in the aftermath of disasters. Research has revealed significant differences in disaster resilience at various levels of analysis, and here again poverty and marginality are often (though not necessarily) associated with low capacities.
Risk is a term that is also used extensively in the study of disasters. Risk has been defined as “a situation or event in which something of human value (including humans themselves) has been put at stake and where the outcome is uncertain” (Jaeger, Renn, Rosa, and Webler 2001: 17). The idea that entities that have human value are “at stake” means that losses may occur. Although the term is commonly used to refer to the possibility of losses, the concept also includes the potential for positive outcomes. People risk their money when they play the stock market, which has the potential for yielding gains as well as losses. People also engage in risky activities such as skydiving and extreme sports because, even though these are dangerous, they hold the possibility of rewards such as excitement and a sense of accomplishment. As the definition indicates, risk is always accompanied by uncertainty. We know that losses may result from taking risks, but we can only estimate their likelihood. The fields of risk analysis and risk management focus on clarifying those probabilities to the greatest extent possible and on taking steps to reduce the risks.
Emergence is a concept used to refer to new patterns of individual, group, and organizational behavior that are formed during and after the occurrence of disasters. Disasters are occasions that call into being novel social groupings and collaboration and coordination networks whose structures grow and change in response to newly identified needs. Disasters and catastrophes always contain an element of surprise—occurrences that were not, even could not, have been foreseen. Essentially, if an event does not produce surprises, it is not a disaster; it is merely a small or larger emergency. Emergence is common in disaster situations because so much of what happens in disasters is unanticipated.
At different points in this book I will use the term disaster agent. A disaster agent is a physical force that leads to the occurrence of a disaster. Here again, the agent and the disaster are not the same thing; a disaster occurs when an agent damages and disrupts human societies and the sorts of things that humans value. A partial list of disaster agents includes hurricanes or tropical cyclones, riverine and flash floods, tornadoes, wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, and various types of chemical or nuclear agents that can be released as a result of facility accidents or as a result of impacts caused by other disaster agents—as happened in the 2011 Japan triple disaster, where, as noted earlier, an earthquake triggered a tsunami, which in turn caused core meltdowns in nuclear facilities.
Historically, researchers have distinguished disaster agents along several dimensions: whether they occur with or without warning; how long a warning period they allow for; the duration of impact; the scope of impact (localized disasters vs. disasters with broader impact areas); whether impacts are singular or repetitive; and whether the agent is familiar or unfamiliar and exotic. Using these distinctions, an earthquake is characterized as a disaster agent that creates impacts without warning,1 is relatively brief in duration, lasting seconds or minutes, typically has a large geographic scope of impact, and carries the potential for repetitive impacts in the form of aftershocks. Earthquake hazards are familiar and well understood in many regions of the world, and many major earthquake faults have been mapped, but earthquakes also occur unexpectedly, on unmapped faults and in places where residents are not aware of the hazard. These features make this particular disaster agent challenging in terms of societal and community ability to respond. Other types of disaster agents also present distinctive challenges. Droughts are slow-onset occurrences, and often drought conditions and their adverse impacts are not recognized until a drought is well advanced, deaths begin to occur, and livelihoods are disrupted. Chemical and nuclear incidents may be so unfamiliar that members of the public may not know what risks they pose or how to protect themselves. In the presence of those kinds of agents the public will be especially reliant on authorities to communicate effectively regarding what they need to do to avoid danger.
Some disaster agents are able to produce very severe and widespread impacts and thus can be more likely to lead to catastrophes, particularly when vulnerability is high in the affected areas. In this century, for example, a number of catastrophes and near-catastrophes have resulted in the death of tens to hundreds of thousands of people. Examples include the 2001 Gujurat earthquake in India (over 20,000 fatalities), the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami (over 200,000 deaths), an earthquake in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in 2005 (over 73,000 fatalities), Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008 (more than 130,000 killed); the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China (nearly 88,000 deaths), the 2010 Haiti earthquake (an estimated 220,000 killed), and the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan (approximately 20,000 deaths). Earthquakes and tropical storms are not the only disaster agents that have brought about high mortality in this century; in the summer of 2003 a heatwave that struck Europe resulted in the deaths of an estimated 70,000 people. (All statistics are based on CRED 2016.) Note that, with the exception of the 2003 heat wave and the 2011 Japan disaster, all the events listed here took place in less developed countries. In this volume I will explore why death tolls are so high in those kinds of societal settings.
Climate change is a hazard that stands virtually in a category of its own. Outside scientific and policy circles, its characteristics and effects are largely unfamiliar. Its onset has been and continues to be relatively slow and, for many people, its effects to date have remained unseen, while other people are already experiencing them. It currently affects nations and communities around the world primarily through its interaction with other hazards and through its influence on the likelihood and severity of certain disaster agents. Although scientists note that it is difficult to attribute specific disaster events to climate change, it is widely recognized that, when climate change causes sea-level rise, this makes the storm surges associated with hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons larger and that, when it increases ocean temperatures, it contributes to more intense rainfall events. With climate change, we will see more periods of extreme heat, which can contribute to the occurrence of deadly heat waves and wildfires. Climate change will be discussed throughout this volume, but especially in Chapter 8.
At various points in the book, I will also use the term hazards cycle, which refers to activities that can be undertaken before disasters, during and immediately after disaster impact, and during the longer-term recovery period to reduce losses and hasten recovery. The hazards cycle consists of four elements: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Mitigation refers to measures that can be taken in advance of disasters, with a view to reducing their impacts.2 Such measures include planning and zoning activities that direct development away from hazardous areas; building codes that require disaster-resistant construction; and strategies for retrofitting structures, so that they can resist being damaged when disasters strike. These types of measures are typically undertaken either by governments or as part of governmental requirements. Another important aspect of mitigation involves strengthening the natural defenses that reduce the impacts of disaster agents, for example restoring wetlands so that can they absorb hurricane-force winds. Private property owners often engage in disaster mitigation activities on their own—for example, when homeowners in earthquake country bolt their homes to their foundations so that those structures would not slip off their foundations when an earthquake strikes.
Insurance is sometimes considered a mitigation measure, but that is not entirely accurate. Insurance does not so much reduce risk as identify other parties (insurance and reinsurance companies) that will pay for damages in the event of a disaster. Insurance can be used to spur mitigation actions, however, as happens when insurance coverage is tied to the implementation of mitigation measures. In the US National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), for example, flood insurance premiums paid by property owners are lower if the communities where those property owners live undertake flood control projects. Following the NFIP’s Community Rating System, the more the communities do to reduce flood hazards, the less property owners have to pay.
The second stage in the cycle, preparedness, consists of activities taken in advance of disasters that strengthen the ability of communities, households, and individuals to respond effectively when disaster strikes. Preparedness measures cover the development of disaster plans at various governmental levels, ranging from local to national and international, as well as household and business disaster planning. Such measures also include knowing what to do when a disaster threatens or strikes—for example, being aware of evacuation routes and knowing what self-protective measures to carry out in the event of a chemical or nuclear accident or other type of disaster. Drills and exercises are other common preparedness activities that are undertaken by emergency responders to ensure disaster readiness, as well as by institutions such as schools and hospitals and by private sector organizations. Governmental agencies seek to improve public preparedness through various forms of messaging, such as by communicating with the public about hazards and risks through a range of media or by educating the public about what to do in the event of a disaster. Other kinds of preparedness activities are developing disaster-warning systems, marking evacuation routes and providing evacuation maps, providing training experiences for members of at-risk populations so that they can assist in the event of a disaster, and integrating hazards knowledge into school curricula.
Response, the third stage of the hazards cycle, takes place when disasters occur and consists of activities undertaken by individuals, households, businesses, and governmental and nongovernmental organizations and aimed at coping with the impacts of disaster. Response activities are multifaceted; examples include implementing expedient self-protective measures such as evacuating and seeking emergency shelter; activating disaster plans; searching for and rescuing persons in distress; caring for the injured and making arrangements for those who have been killed; containing immediate threats associated with cascading disaster effects, such as agent-induced fires and hazardous materials releases; and taking additional measures to ensure public safety, such as issuing information about particularly hazardous areas and evolving threats. As discussed earlier in this chapter, as disasters unfold, new dangers emerge, and part of the response to disasters consists of informing the public about those dangers. Entities that respond to disasters encounter challenges of their own. For example, they must be able to assess the disaster situation and identify and prioritize critical needs. They also must be able to communicate and coordinate their activities.
As we will see later, particularly in Chapters 4 and 7, responding to disasters involves implementing disaster plans—but other measures as well. Response activities include improvising in various ways when plans fail to anticipate realities on the ground. While we tend to think that disaster response consists of the activities of so-called “first responders”—such as fire services, police, and emergency management personnel—actual disaster responses are diffuse and decentralized, as members of the public and entities that had not been included in planning activities spur into action and new groups emerge to address pressing needs. Sometimes such public-based responses are well coordinated with those of official entities; other times they are not. Viewing disaster response as “what first responders do” misses the point that, as noted earlier in Table 1.1 and the discussion around it, the public is, typically, extensively involved in a range of response activities in the aftermath of disasters and catastrophic events. It is only in emergency incidents that public safety agencies are the main ones to handle response activities.
Finally, disaster recovery consists of all the activities that encompass efforts on the part of those affected by disasters to overcome disaster disruption and continue to thrive. Here again, recovery activities take place at different levels: individuals, households, businesses, communities, regions, and in some cases entire societies. Recent scholarship and practice emphasize the idea that recovery activities can be planned even before disasters occur, in order to smooth the recovery process.
Disaster recovery is often incorrectly equated with restoring and reconstructing the built environment. However, as we will see in more detail later, many other processes unfold during post-disaster recovery, for example processes associated with recovering from trauma, reestablishing disrupted livelihoods and economic activity, and regaining a sense of community. Too often after disasters governments hasten to reconstruct and rebuild, but without attending to other, less tangible but still essential aspects of recovery. As a result, communities are left with rebuilt and often attractive physical spaces that fail to meet their social and cultural needs.
In keeping with the disaster cycle concept, recovery activities should, and often do, incorporate new mitigation measures, bringing the cycle full circle. The recovery period after a disaster can open up new opportunities to increase the safety of affected communities through implementation of mitigation strategies. This is the period when disaster-stricken communities can make progress in areas such as hazard-aware land use policies and stricter building codes, as interest groups that may have previously opposed such measures recognize and embrace mitigation as a pressing need. Governments can help in this respect. For example, US post-disaster assistance frameworks allow for setting aside funds, proportionate to the size of aid packages, specifically for mitigating the impacts of future disasters. Unfortunately, however, even though the recovery period presents possibilities for future risk reduction, those possibilities frequently go unrealized, leaving disaster-stricken areas vulnerable to future events.
Chapter Themes
This book provides an introduction to the sociology of disasters and at the same time seeks to advance the field, particularly with respect to theories concerning the causes of disasters. Many of the issues discussed in this volume are covered in greater detail in more specialized publications that deal, for example, with topics such as disaster vulnerability and resilience. In those cases, my task is to present an overview of the current scholarship and point readers to those additional sources for more in-depth analyses. In addition and perhaps more importantly, what I hope to do in this volume is advance new ideas about the societal origins of disasters. Much of the discussion in the chapters that follow delves more deeply into ideas that I began to develop in an earlier book, The Social Roots of Risk (Tierney 2014). As that title suggests, disasters and their impacts are produced to a much greater extent through the workings of social forces than of natural or technological ones. Put more directly, the arguments I make here show that disasters are socially produced, not produced by natural or technological forces external to society, and that those societal forces constitute the means by which disasters take their toll on human lives and livelihoods. The root causes of disasters are to be found in the social order itself—that is, in social arrangements that contribute to the buildup of risk and vulnerability. As subsequent chapters will show, those interacting and mutually reinforcing arrangements include processes that operate within the global political economy, actions undertaken by state actors for their own purposes that ignore and increase hazards and risks, processes that contribute to social vulnerability by further marginalizing disadvantaged social groups, and local growth-machine politics that elevate so-called “economic development” as a major priority while ignoring increasing risks.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the history of disaster research in sociology and other social sciences. It shows how systems thinking in sociology and the idea of “adjustments” to hazards in geography formed the basis for early research in the field. In Chapter 2 we also see how both theory and research on disasters have changed over time. New theoretical approaches such as the pressure and release (PAR) model have come to the fore that place greater emphasis on the social production of disaster vulnerability than on the physical events that cause societal disruption. While the early tradition in disaster research focused mainly on the impact and response periods of disasters, later research has begun to concentrate on other phases of the hazards cycle, including mitigation and recovery.
The boundaries around what constitutes the sociology of disasters are fuzzy; other social science disciplines have made significant contributions to the sociological understanding of disasters, their causes, and their impacts. In Chapter 3 I focus on some of the most important contributions from fields such as economics, geography, psychology, and mental health.
In Chapter 4 I present an overview of general theoretical perspectives that can be applied to better understand disasters, as well as middle-range theories that explain different aspects of disaster-related phenomena. The chapter shows how perspectives such as that of world systems theory, along with insights from environmental sociology, reveal the social roots of disasters, as well as how constructivist perspectives help us understand what shapes our thinking on disasters—and what shapes our ignorance of hazards. Also discussed are theoretical perspectives that help explain phenomena such as self-protective behaviors and group and network emergence.
Chapter 5 provides an overview of disaster research methods. This chapter is not intended to be a primer on research methods, or even on all the methods that disaster researchers employ. Rather the discussion centers on what is distinctive about conducting research in disaster settings, including challenges to applying conventional research approaches in disrupted social environments. This chapter also focuses on the special operational and ethical challenges that accompany the efforts to carry out research in disaster contexts. For example, unlike researchers who plan their studies over months and even years, those who study disaster response activities may be required to mobilize—which often means going to unfamiliar places—at very short notice. Ethical issues always arise in research involving human subjects, but are those issues the same or different in disasters? Do disaster survivors warrant special ethical protections? We will explore these and similar questions in Chapter 5.
The concept of disaster vulnerability is discussed in many places in this volume, but Chapter 6 delves more deeply into it, focusing on global and historical trends that make particular populations and groups more vulnerable than others and on the intersectional nature of vulnerability, given that factors such as race, ethnicity, class, and gender combine to produce differential levels of vulnerability. Age and disability are among other factors explored as sources of vulnerability, as are citizenship and linguistic competence. A key point emphasized in this chapter, and indeed throughout the volume, is that individuals and groups are not born vulnerable: they are rendered vulnerable through processes of social marginalization and exclusion. This chapter also reviews efforts to measure disaster vulnerability.
Chapter 7 focuses on disaster resilience: what it is, what factors contribute to it, and why it is relevant to our understanding of why some segments of society are able to cope successfully with disasters while others are not. Discussions in this chapter focus a good deal on the concept of social capital as it relates to disaster resilience. Like Chapter 6, this chapter provides an overview of efforts to measure resilience as well as to improve it by reducing disaster vulnerability (among other strategies). Although the concept of resilience is ubiquitous in disaster research and practice, it is also contested, and in this chapter we will review critiques of it.
Chapter 8 offers ideas about what we can expect in the future in the way of future disasters, as processes of global environmental change inexorably proceed. New threats are emerging, including threats associated with our growing dependence on an increasingly vulnerable power grid and cyber-infrastructure.
Notes
1.
Efforts have been under way for decades to predict earthquakes or, failing that, to issue short-term warnings, advisories, and real-time warnings—that is, warnings issued to distant areas at the time when earthquakes begin to occur. Without going into detail about the success—or lack of it—of such initiatives, suffice it to say that, at this point in time, the ability to foresee earthquakes remains elusive.
2.
This definition of hazard mitigation should not be confused with the way the term is used in climate change circles, where mitigation refers to efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions and reduce global warming.
2Disaster Research in Historical ContextEarly Insights and Recent Trends
Introduction
In this chapter I offer a general overview of the field of disaster research, with an emphasis on contributions from sociology and geography. I then move on to discuss major critiques that were launched against classic disaster and hazards research. This discussion is followed by an overview of subsequent trends in the evolution of the field—especially the growing emphasis on vulnerability as a central topic for research, the introduction of perspectives highlighting power and inequality in the genesis of disasters and in disaster victimization, and the recognition of the importance of axes of inequality such as class, race, and gender in producing disaster impacts and outcomes. We will see how an international network of researchers has formed over time and how the field has matured, as indicated by the growing number of research centers devoted to the social dimensions of hazards and disasters as well as by that of specialist journals in the field. Chapter narratives will also emphasize how particular disaster events shaped sociological research over time. The themes discussed in this chapter are meant to introduce readers to key ideas in the sociological study of disasters that will be explored in the main body of this book.
Disaster Research: Origins and Early Years
Notwithstanding important early research by Samuel Prince (1920) and Lowell Carr (1932), disaster research began as an organized discipline in the United States in the late 1940s. The original impetus for research on disasters came from the US military. The United States’ use of nuclear weapons against Japan in World War II and the Soviet Union’s successful nuclear test in August 1949 ushered in a period in which the two enemy states and the world at large were forced to contemplate the possibility of nuclear war. One topic of interest was how members of the public would react in the face of nuclear destruction. War planners were wondering whether panic and hysteria would result, whether collective demoralization would set in, or whether residents in bomb-stricken areas would be psychologically willing and able to cope with the terror of nuclear war and begin to rebuild their communities; and this was not the first time that such concerns were being addressed. Findings from the World War II Strategic Bombing Surveys in Europe and Japan suggested that even the most intensive bombing campaigns were unsuccessful in destroying community morale; the bombing actually improved morale. However, those findings were downplayed by military leaders who championed air power and bombs as a way to win wars (Quarantelli 1987; Knowles 2011).
Initial research into the societal dimensions of disasters focused on an event that resembled what might take place in wartime. In August 1948 an air inversion in Donora, Pennsylvania resulted in a toxic smog that killed twenty residents and sickened approximately 7,000—about half of the population in that community. The Army Chemical Center (ACC), which played a role in US chemical warfare planning, sent a team of psychiatrists to look into the deadly smog episode, in an effort to better understand the psychological effects it had on the population; the idea was that such a study could provide insights into possible public reactions to the use of chemical weapons. One finding was that residents who were not exposed to the toxic smog exhibited reactions similar to those of residents who had been directly exposed. This suggested that psychological as well as physiological factors were at play and that chemical weapons could in principle cause panic or other adverse effects in exposed populations.
The ACC asked the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago to conduct a more in-depth study of the Donora episode, but it proved difficult for the center to recruit and train enough field staff to collect all the needed time-sensitive data on public responses. The ACC went on to establish a contract with NORC whereby the latter would train University of Chicago social science graduate students and send them into the field, on a quick-response basis, after major disasters. More than a dozen students were recruited and trained in field methods. Emergencies that took place in and around Chicago were used as training opportunities.
NORC subsequently conducted several quick-response studies on different types of community emergencies, and in 1952 it undertook its first large-scale research project following a deadly tornado that struck White County, Arkansas. The study, which involved face-to-face interviews with 342 residents, yielded a large amount of data on public responses immediately before the tornado struck; the respondents’ perceptions of threat at the time of impact; their observations about the behavior of others during the impact period; psychological and behavioral responses after impact, including participation in search and rescue activities; and their emotional responses and behavior in the days and weeks after the disaster. Enrico (Henry) Quarantelli, who was among the original NORC team members, later noted that the findings from this seminal study were replicated many times in subsequent research. For example, the White County study found that
[s]elf control is maintained in extreme threat situations. Panic or wild flight, hysterical breakdown, affective immobility are almost non-existent … Those in danger try to help one another. Because persons are very frightened or afraid does not mean that they will fail to try and take protective actions … Passivity is not characteristic of the immediate post-impact period. The initial and by far the greatest amount of search and rescue is undertaken on the spot by survivors … Severe mental health problems are not occasioned on any scale by disasters … Convergence on a disaster site is a major problem … There may be widespread stories of looting, but actual cases of looting are very rare in post-impact situations. (Quarantelli 1988: 305)
These findings contradicted war planners’ expectations about public reactions under conditions of extreme stress. Rather than revealing pathological or antisocial patterns of behavior, the early NORC studies characterized disaster victims as levelheaded (even though fearful) and willing to engage in a variety of pro-social behaviors.
The pioneering NORC studies were significant for their contributions to the subsequent growth of the field. Charles Fritz, who played an important role in establishing the NORC disaster teams, went on to direct studies that were conducted by the Committee on Disaster Studies and the Disaster Research Group at the National Academy of Sciences and became a central figure in disaster-related activities at the Academy. Under Fritz’s direction, the Academy carried out approximately 160 disaster studies during the 1950s (for more detail, see Quarantelli 1987). It was also Fritz who formulated what is probably the best-known definition of disaster:
[a]n event, concentrated in time and space, in which a society, or a relatively self-sufficient subdivision of a society, undergoes severe danger and incurs such losses to its members and physical appurtenances that the social structure is disrupted and the fulfillment of all or some of the essential functions of the society is prevented. (Fritz 1961: 655)
Henry Quarantelli went on to become one of the founders of the Disaster Research Center (DRC), which was the first place of its kind in the world: a center devoted to the study of the social and behavioral aspects of disasters. Established in 1963 at Ohio State University, DRC moved in 1985 to the University of Delaware, where it continues to operate. In 1962, Quarantelli and DRC co-founders Russell Dynes and J. Eugene Haas—who, like Quarantelli, were professors in the sociology department at Ohio State University—submitted a proposal to the National Science Foundation requesting support for disaster studies. Somehow—and the three sociologists never did find out how this happened—the proposal made its way both to the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and to the US Office of Civil Defense. Significant funding followed. What had originally been a request for $50,000 for a project designed to take up eighteen months subsequently became a five-year $1,000,000 grant from the Office of Civil Defense—nearly $8 million in 2017 dollars (Knowles 2011).
At the time of its founding, the DRC conducted both laboratory and field studies. A key focus of the center’s laboratory research, which was funded by the US Air Force, was on organizational responses to stress. In one laboratory study, groups of police dispatchers were brought into the lab and asked to respond during a simulated plane crash. In this scripted simulation study, DRC staff members relayed messages to the dispatchers that were designed to increase their stress levels. The objective was to learn how communication and decision-making patterns change when organizations are faced with excessive demands (Drabek and Haas 1969).
Initial DRC field studies focused on a variety of different disaster types, including floods, fires, a dam break in Italy, and major explosions. The 1964 Great Alaska earthquake gave the DRC its first opportunity to conduct fieldwork in a truly major disaster. DRC field teams carried out research beginning in the immediate post-earthquake period and continuing until nearly two years later; they conducted over 500 tape-recorded interviews and collected numerous reports and other materials in various earthquake-stricken communities (Anderson 2014). When the National Academy of Sciences established a committee on the Alaska earthquake, DRC researchers were represented on the committee and made a number of contributions to the Academy’s reports. Much of DRC’s research on the earthquake focused on organizational performance, adaptation, and change following the earthquake, but there was also an emphasis on groups made of up community residents that formed spontaneously in the earthquake’s aftermath. Dubbed “emergent groups,” these informal responders became a continuing area of interest for DRC and for other disaster researchers (Brouillette and Quarantelli 1971; Stallings and Quarantelli 1985). The Great Alaska earthquake studies were also marked by a focus on community recovery; the Alaska case was subsequently included in the volume Reconstruction Following Disaster (Haas, Kates, and Bowden 1977). Notwithstanding this concern with longer-term recovery issues, the Alaska study and many of the studies that followed placed significantly more emphasis on response patterns during the immediate post-impact period.
The general conceptual model that guided these early studies was based on two related theoretical perspectives that were influential at the time: structural functionalism and systems theory. As emphasized in Fritz’s original definition of disaster, communities were seen by early researchers as consisting of systems and subsystems organized around the performance of key functions such as socialization, economic activity, and education. A disaster is a damaging event that disrupts the operations of these subsystems, making such functions impossible to perform. Because communities are systems, excessive demands such as those created by disasters result in a search for ways of returning to equilibrium—in this case, they stimulate efforts to enhance community capabilities so that those demands are met. The term “demand/capability ratio” was employed to convey the idea that disasters happen when demands exceed capabilities; under such conditions, organizations and communities must devise ways of coping. The use of the systems framework thus necessitated a focus on how organizations and service delivery systems adapt and change in the face of disaster-related demands, as well as on group emergence as a spontaneous strategy intended to cope with those demands. Researchers documented how responding organizations increase in size by taking on volunteers, how resources converge from outside disaster-stricken areas, how entities that previously had no disaster-related responsibilities get involved in disaster response, and how community-based groups emerge to carry out various response activities because official public safety agencies, which would normally carry out those tasks, are overwhelmed.
